DocketNumber: No. CV 95 0552958 S
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 3762, 16 Conn. L. Rptr. 466
Judges: SPADA, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 4/16/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The dispositive issue is whether the defendants' failure to register their limited partnership certificate (as required by C.G.S. §
Upon a revisit of the Motion to Strike the second count, this court concludes that no cognizable cause of action exists under this count and accordingly the Motion to Strike is granted.
The facts are not complicated. In the first count the plaintiff alleges a wrongful termination of employment because of his refusal to remove some asbestos products. In the second count the plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to file a certificate of limited partnership with the Secretary of the State as required by Conn. Gen. Statute, §
Conn. Gen. Statute, §
The second ground for striking the challenged count is that it does not allege a nexus between the plaintiff's alleged injuries and the failure to register the partnership certificate. "The plaintiff's claim, however, must fail because in order to prove a private cause of action under Cutpa, the plaintiff must show not only that [the defendant] engaged in an unfair trade practice, but that he suffered harm as a result." Haesche v. Kissner,
Section
The third ground for striking the second count is simply that the employer-employee relationship does not fall within the definition of trade or commerce for the purposes of an action under Cutpa. Quinby v. Kimberly Clark Corporation,
The actual employment relationship is not itself trade or commerce for the purpose of Cutpa. Ct. Banerjee v. Robert,
For the reasons stated, the defendants' motion to strike the second count is accordingly granted.
SO ORDERED:
Arthur L. Spada, Judge CT Page 3764